Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.31 seconds)
State Of Gujarat vs Gunvantrai Narmadashankar Vyas on 19 July, 2018 cites

Shanti Sports Club & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 25 August, 2009

In Shanti Sports Club v. Union of India (supra) the Supreme Court held that a noting recorded in the file is merely a noting simpliciter and nothing more. It merely represents expression of opinion by the particular individual and that by no stretch of imagination, such noting can be treated as a decision of the Government. The court held that even if the competent authority records its opinion in the file on the merits of the matter under consideration, the same cannot be termed as a decision of the Government unless it is sanctified and acted upon by issuing an order in accordance with Article 77(1) and (2) or Articles 166(1) and (2). The noting in the file or even a decision gets culminated into an order affecting the rights of parties only when it is expressed in the name of the President or the Governor, as the case may be, and authenticated in the manner provided in Article 77(2) or Article 166(2). A noting or even a decision recorded in the file can always be reviewed/overruled or overturned and the court cannot take Page 28 of 34 C/LPA/907/2016 JUDGMENT cognizance of the earlier noting or decision for exercise of powers of judicial review. Thus, in the absence of an order expressed in the name of the Governor and authenticated in the manner provided in article 166(2) of the Constitution, the petitioners cannot be denied the benefit of NPPA which was granted by virtue of an order under article 166 of the Constitution and subsequently incorporated in the ROP Rules framed in exercise of powers under article 309.
Supreme Court of India Cites 77 - Cited by 354 - G S Singhvi - Full Document

Union Of India And Ors vs Hindustan Development Corpn. And Ors on 15 April, 1993

26. In the opinion of this court there was a legitimate expectation on the part of the petitioners that they are entitled to the benefit of NPPA which has been given to them since decades. It is by now well settled that the doctrine of 'legitimate expectation' imposes in essence a duty on public authority to act fairly by taking into consideration all relevant factors relating to such 'legitimate expectation'. Within the conspectus of fair dealing in case of 'legitimate expectation', the reasonable opportunities to make representation by the parties likely to be affected by any change of consistent past policy, come in. [see Union of India v. Hindustan development Corpn., (1993) 3 SCC 499] . It was further held in the above decision that the protection of such legitimate expectation does not require the fulfillment of the expectation where an overriding public interest requires otherwise. In other words where a person's legitimate expectation is not fulfilled by taking a particular decision then decision-maker should justify the denial of such expectation by showing some overriding public interest. In the facts of the present case, except for a mere assertion in the affidavit-in-reply there is nothing to show that any decision was taken for some overriding public interest to withdraw the benefit of NPPA that Page 29 of 34 C/LPA/907/2016 JUDGMENT was being given to the petitioners. In fact as noted hereinabove, there is no decision worth the name and what is sought to be relied upon to deny the benefit of NPPA to the petitioners is merely a noting on the file, that too, pursuant to an objection raised by the audit department.
Supreme Court of India Cites 26 - Cited by 545 - G N Ray - Full Document
1   2 Next